Abusive Muslim Boyfriend

I am sure that I sound as many other Christian women who are in a relationship with a Muslim man. We all know what is good for us and we still keep some hope that the relationship can work.

I am with this Muslim guy since 9 years .we live in Canada and he is really not practicing Islam. Accept Ramadan, and this is only in the last years. We drink together, have fun together, people love him, cause he is extremely nice with everyone , social and always well behaved .But with me he is very controlling. As longest I don’t oppose him and smile and talk low, he is great .But God forbidden I speak my mind especially in front people he starts insulting me and is really condescending with his worlds . We have few museums friends who are very serious with practicing Islam , and he tries to look good in front of them, no drinking , no smoking. this year (Ramadan ) we had guest over for the iftar , and I help cooking all day , just before the guests to arrive I wanted to relax and have a glass of wine, to relax. My boyfriend made a huge issue from that and told me that I disrespect his friends on Ramadan. and I should not drink . But this is my house too and I welcome them with food on the table, I took care of the house to look good they to feel good, they should respect me too. I tried to explain him but he got furious, screaming and breaking staff. I am very confused what to do.

Can you tell me what you think? why they are such a hypocrites and even if he claims he is modern and goes out, parties, drinks, when is Ramadan he changes and with me he tries to always be right and when arguing he never listens to my arguments. He simply tells me I am stupid and not intelligent and not decent. I am really not that and everyone knows. But for him, in his eyes, I am not even good to explain my argument –he refuse to hear what I feel and think.

Thank in advance.

Kay (name changed)

Dear Kay,

I am afraid I will have to shatter your hope. This relationship is not going to work. Your boyfriend is a Muslim. No matter how wonderful person he may be, there are two negative things about him: His belief and his upbringing. When your lover contracts AIDS it is advisable that you don’t sleep with him. He could be a wonderful a person, but would that make any difference? Islam is worse than AIDS. There are no interreligious happy marriages with Muslims. If there is, it is because the Muslim partner is only nominally Muslim.

Your boyfriend believes in a misogynist religion that regards women as inferior, deficient in intelligent, naturally inclined to deceitfulness and sin. That is one problem. The other is that he has grown up in an Islamic society. Misogyny has become his second nature. His father belittled and humiliated his mother. His uncles humiliated and belittled their wives. His neighbors, friends, and the entire society did the same. Women in Islamic societies accept being subservient to men and admit to be inferior to them. Everyone is conditioned to think this way. It seems normal to them because everyone else believes it and they consider anything Islamic better than anything that comes from kafirdom.

As a person that has grown up in a western culture were equality of men and women is accepted as a fact, you won’t feel comfortable with a misogynist Muslim man. Unless you agree to give up your individuality and freedom and accept to be humiliated and abused I suggest you get out of this relationship. Many western women marrying Muslim men give up all these things. It happens so gradually that they don’t realize it and don’t feel coerced. Don’t tell me a woman who agrees to wear hijab has any dignity left in her. A woman who believes her arms, her legs and all parts of her body are extensions of her vagina and private parts that have to be covered has no dignity and does not deserve any respect. If she wants to project an image of herself as a walking talking vagina, she should be treated as such.

Love does not exist without respect. A man can feel attachment for a woman but if he does not know how to respect her mind, her decisions and her independence that attachment is based on need, not love. If you threaten to leave him he may cry, but that is not because he loves you. It is because he does not know what to do without you. He needs you to take care of his emotional needs.

Your boyfriend is also violent. He breaks things. Why hasn’t he beaten you yet? He fears the consequence. You live in a western country and he fears the law and he also fears that you may leave him. Since you are just boyfriend-girlfriend and have no children, it is easy for you to walk away. That would be hard on him. But once you get married and have children, his control over you increases and you may see a facet of him that you had not seen yet.

If I had the right to advise you I would have told you to plan carefully your way out of this relationship. Don’t tell him anything. Once you know you will be safe, leave him and do it in such a way that he cannot pose a threat to you. He may not be that stupid but it is not unheard of Muslim men acting violently towards women who reject them.

The whole Islamic world is narcissist. They all reflect the mental disorder of their prophet. Narcissists are abusive. They have very low self-esteem. They humiliate their nearest and dearest. They put others down so they can feel good about themselves. They also have double standard. They engage in all sorts of vices and want to be perceived as holy people. This was how Muhammad was. They are concerned about their image.

The Islamic world is based on shame and honor. These are narcissistic concepts. Ethical societies base their values on guilt and innocence. In cultures that are based on guilt and innocence, evil is avoided because it destroys innocence and it induces guilt. To have guilt you have to have conscience.

In societies that are based on shame and honor, your only concern is how others view you. The image that you project is more important than yourself. All that matters is that others perceive you as an upright and moral person. As long as you can keep that image, you are okay even if you live a degenerate life. In brief, in shame based societies it is one’s projected image that defines his actions, whereas in guilt based societies it is one’s conscience that polices ones conduct.

When two persons coming from these two opposing world-views become a couple their values clash. The person coming from guilt and innocence culture suffer most, especially if that person happens to be a woman and physically in a disadvantage. In a violent confrontation between a man and a woman, often the latter gets most of the beating. Even without the physical violence, the person with conscience suffers more than the one bereft of it.

To you Muslims appear as hypocrite and you are right. But as far as they are concerned this hypocrisy is the way of life. This is how things have been forever. In the sick mind of a Muslim, the only thing that matters is how others view him. He can be shit inside (pardon the Arabic), but as long as others think he is a good man he can live a happy life with no pang of conscience. When you don’t have a conscience, how can you feel pain in it?

Narcissists are also vindictive. It is not unknown for Muslim men to harm the woman they claim to love if she rejects them. Your boyfriend may not be a violent person (I don’t know then why he smashes things) but he is a Muslim. I advise you to be a bit more cautious when breaking up with a Muslim man. They have such a fragile sense of self that they often can’t take rejection well. When you reject a narcissist you burst his bubble of self importance and he may want to take his revenge.

Since I don’t know your particular case, I cannot give you any suggestions. I am speaking in general terms. In case you believe this man is good and can be salvaged (this is often wishful thinking) you may want to try to speak to him about the problem. The problem is deeper than what he is willing to acknowledge. He may apologize for being rude to you and promise to not do it again. But that does not solve the problem. He is not in control of his actions. He is a victim of a wrong upbringing and a wrong religion. Until he gets rid of these two monkeys, his promises are dime a dozen.

So speak to him clearly. Tell him you have come to the conclusion that Islam is the problem and the reason for his bad behaviour. If he acknowledges that and leaves Islam the problem will not be solved, but at least an awareness of it is created. Once you are aware of the problem you are in a much better situation to deal with it.

You have to give him two choices: Study Islam together and discover the truth about it or sayonara. If he agrees to study Islam I suggest you read my book because this book gives you a perspective through which you will be able to solve all its mysteries.

Women who suffer and endure abusive relationship often suffer from low self-esteem. No person who respects herself will stay in such relationships. They immediately can spot an abusive person and will leave him. They often don’t even get beyond the first date with such people. This relationship is not healthy for you. It destroys your self-esteem and this is the mother of all ills.

No Responses

Dear Sabrina
"Being Muslim doesn't make you abusive, our religion teaches women to be treated fairly and kindly. Just so you know, if he drinks alcohol and is abusive he is NOT muslim. So stop associating Islam with anger. He has problems but Islam has nothing to do with it because muslims dont drink alcohol or date."
After reading above quotes I think you not accepting this bitter truth studiously because you are a woman and what is going on in Muslim society it could not deny
Alrrijalu qawwamoona AAala alnnisa-i bima faddala Allahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabima anfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatun hafithatun lilghaybi bima hafitha Allahu waallatee takhafoona nushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunna fee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakum fala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna Allaha kana AAaliyyan kabeeran
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
Men are guardians over women because Allah has made some of them excel others, and because they (men) spend of their wealth. So virtuous women are those who are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with Allah’s protection. And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and leave them alone in their beds, and chastise them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely, Allah is High, Great.”- as translated by Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamath, see verse at alislam“Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.”- as translated in Sahih International, at Quran.com“Men are (meant to be righteous and kind) guardians of women because God has favored some more than others and because they (i.e. men) spend out of their wealth. (In their turn) righteous women are (meant to be) devoted and to guard what God has (willed to be) guarded even though out of sight (of the husband). As for those (women) on whose part you fear ill-will and nasty conduct, admonish them (first), (next) leave them alone in beds (and last) beat or separate them (from you). But if they obey you, then seek nothing against them. Behold, God is most high and great."- Translation by Ahmad Shafaat“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property). As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.”- Translation by Muhsin Khan“Men are guardians of women, because Allah has made one superior to the other, and (also) because men spend their wealth (on them). So the pious wives are obedient. They guard (their chastity) in the absence of their husbands with the protection of Allah. But those women whom you fear will disobey and defy, admonish them; and (if they do not amend) separate them (from yourselves) in beds; and (if they still do not improve) turn away from them, striking a temporary parting. Then if they become cooperative with you, do not seek any way against them. Surely, Allah is Most High, Most Great.”- Translation by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri“Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.

You read all above translation and get how they defending it but when it comes in practice that time not any measurement chart is there that she has beaten lightly or forcefully and why male beat female, both are equal and same right. Dear Sabrina you reply to us is it good and will be the order of Allah.

Being Muslim doesn't make you abusive, our religion teaches women to be treated fairly and kindly. Just so you know, if he drinks alcohol and is abusive he is NOT muslim. So stop associating Islam with anger. He has problems but Islam has nothing to do with it because muslims dont drink alcohol or date.

I'm a muslim and just want to say that this womens boyfriend drinks, thus he isn't classified a muslim. So I don't know why this Sina is losing his stupid head, considering the man he's talking about isn't even a muslim in the sight of Allah.

but y it so general with musllims….maybe dere is something wrong with it…
y does quran consider female inferior to men…STRANGE..
religion we practise have influence over our physology n thoughts,,,we have been bought up with dese thoughts,,,so naturally if it is thought dt women r inferior.etc etc…den naturally…like nazim brainwashed ppl…ppl (muslims) get influenced…n reflect d same behaviour..
y is mr SINA blamed…
u should see d census about how women r treated in islam…
n hence its generalisation….dere may be good muslims…bt den dey good people…
nt muslims…if u practise islam to core…u ought ti became…evil…

You cannot know people unless you speak (or at least make an attempt to speak) their language. It is amazing how implicit worldviews can differ and how unilateral information in a particular language can be.

I think I meant what I wrote. Untutored, our minds are not very good at rational thought, and we suffer from cognitive illusions like we suffer from optical illusions. After all, our brains and mind have to be effective, not right, so assuming that when B follows A, B is caused by A is the correct shortcut for the world our ancestors evolved in.

Science and the scientific method are the tools we have to avoid the shortcuts our brains make. Awareness that we are vulnerable to logical fallacies, openness and documentation of procedures, scrutiny by peers are all tools that help us achieve reliable knowledge.

For the topic of this forum, knowing that by nature humans defend and confirm their current beliefs to the point of using irrational thought, rejecting good evidence that contradicts their beliefs and attacking those who present that evidence, helps us understand the behaviour on this forum.

People are not looking for evidence pro and con, so they can make a rational decision, but they are looking for confirmation of their belief. This actually cuts both ways — the anti-islam brigade will ignore evidence that islam is less violent that they "know" it to be, and moderate muslims will in all likelihood underestimate the potential for violence in the religion.

I like to read your articles because they are full of hope (And I hope that what you have predicted will be true).

I have a doubt on this line: –

'The whole Islamic world is narcissist. They all reflect the mental disorder of their prophet. Narcissists are abusive. They have very low self-esteem. They humiliate their nearest and dearest. They put others down so they can feel good about themselves.'

I have read something about muslims bully behaviour, but i also have read that they see rage in a different way than the rest of the world. We are taught that a cool person is more confident than a bully, and the bully needs to scream, to even attack to fell strong. In islam, rage show confidence, not lacks of it, and this make me worried (I copy and paste this italian piece – I leave it in Italian because to me is hard to translate from italian to english, and anyway you can speak italian, so for you is not a problem)

I read them in translation. My Arabic is only good enough to read a newspaper, slowly 🙁

At least science is aware of our irrational nature and has developed a method to reduce its impact as much as possible. As with optical illusions, where knowing it's an illusion doesn't alter our perception, knowing we're irrational doesn't make us rational. We need to develop our mind, but we also need others fo keep us on the straight and narrow. We need to accept that anything we know can be wrong, even if we are sure it is correct. Actually, the more certain we are, the more we should be on our guard.

Be vigilant,
Engrave these words in your mind,
Be vigilant,
And don't be deceived! Be sure to use your freedom,
for freedom wears out when you do not use it.
Be vigilant,
And remember their faces,
Be vigilant,
And remain courageous
Be vigilant,
And be on your guard!

Here is the link to the comment where MA said she lives in US: http://alisina.org/i-am-depressed/#IDComment40525…
*************
"This might come as a shock… but just becuase something is "news report" – does NOT make it automatically true."
————-
Oh ok, all those bombings in NW pakistan, and the drone attacks must be *stories* that parents tell to scare kids.
**************
"no you don't – you paste up hate most of the time. When questioned you break down."
————-
Ha, don't underestimate people's intelligence. Those visiting this site, reading its articles, and reading comments, can separate the wheat from the chaff quite well.

huh? An example? If you do not bring out an example of where I have told a lie – then this accusation of yours is a lie. It is petty and "trollishes" – to throw about such accusations. Generally when people start doing this – you know they are at the end of their intelligence. Hence resorting to insults, abuse and accusations.

For example… you told me that M.A had said she was from USA – yet when I asked you – first you said you rechecked her comments and she has said that. But when I asked again to given the link… you didin't.

Now I never accused you of lying – and I still don't… But my sixth sense did go off!

– – –

I don't come to this site to hold "civil conversation."

See – you agree – that is what I said! Ha ha ha…

– – –

"I come here to point out the evils of following Islam. Pasting news reports works towards that goal very well. "

Right…. no you don't – you paste up hate most of the time. When questioned you break down.

– – –

" Your calling them "stories" shows the readers how much sympathy you have for fellow Muslims."

This might come as a shock… but just becuase something is "news report" – does NOT make it automatically true.

Also "news reports" – often are "stories". And they are even referred to as such.

Of course there was an
attempt to kill Mohammad.
Don't you remember when
Ali (his cousin) slept in his
bed, because he knew that
there was a conspirecy to
kill Mohammad? Don't you
remember when they selected
one man from each tribe so that
all will kill him in one stroke?
in this way his blood will be
shared by all tribes.
But at that night, Ali knew all
about it and he advised Mohammad to leave his home.
Ali slept in Mohammad's bed.
Anyway, in the end no one was
killed, and they both survived.

I gave you my response in a single sentence.Learn the difference between a theist scientist and a scientific invention which is inspired by religious ideas,and then talk.
You deserved the rudeness because you spoke in between uninvited.

So much to read, so little time. I am happy you reminded me of Ibn al-Haytham. I read the Kitab al-Manazir and Mizan al-Hikmah during my philosophy studies. Amazing lucidity (pardon the bad pun).

You are right, many people manage to overcome (some of) the patterns they acquired in their youth, but they do remain part of us and require constant vigilance (witness the studies on latent racism).

Your comment on internal and external rebellion is interesting. Are people who question the "evidences" they picked up during childhood also more inclined to question the "evidences" of religion or society they encounter in later life? It is undeniable that there are lots of people that accept what (you and?) I would consider total balderdash, such as Joseph Smith and his book of mormon (I tend to forget the second 'm') — Mitt Romney cannot be a complete imbecile (I hope).

But then all religions have their "unreasonable, unbelievable core", the kind of stuff like the immaculate conception, or being spoken to by Jibra'il, or beamed up in a space ship. Is requiring faith a prerequisite for getting followers (i.e. is there a category of people who are naturally attracted to belief, which of course requires something that cannot be examined rationally).

It is quite clear that Ibn al-Haytham did not believe that the quran was a scientific work that contained all answers, or he would not have studied nature. Does this mean that his faith was based on the immensity of nature and the universe, rather than on the need to be part of a successful group? Maybe religion fullfills different needs for different people – security and belonging for many, transcendence for a few?

Can we get rid of the irrational core of religion, that what leads to things like the inquisition, terrorism and hatred, and just keep the transcendental part?

P.S. I didn't mean to compare myself to Newton, who was more lucid about religion than I thought (amazing what a bit of reading will do 🙂 ).

"There was no attempt to kill Muhammad. If they really wanted to kill him they could have done it easily. They were more concerned about community cohesion than getting rid of Muhammad. "

Right… and you know this because…. lets have some references.

– – –

"Muhammad claimed in the Quran that the Quraish plotted to either expel him or to imprison him or to kill him. The Quran is allegedly the word of God and here God is not really sure what the Quraish had been plotting."

Right … yet how is that indecision? Plotting to kill or imprison. That is one down.

At one time it would have been to imprison and then to kill.

– – –

Like I said – you pick and choose whatever you want… whatever fits – and twist some to fit.

Where are your sources… where is you methodology?

– – –

"My "theory" explains Islam perfectly and it fits the portrait of Muhammad like hand in glove. It solves the puzzle. I invite you to read my book and you too will end up seeing the light. "

I have read the above… Understanding Muhammad.

In short it is one badly written [style of language] and inaccurate book.

There was no attempt to kill Muhammad. If they really wanted to kill him they could have done it easily. They were more concerned about community cohesion than getting rid of Muhammad.

Muhammad claimed in the Quran that the Quraish plotted to either expel him or to imprison him or to kill him. The Quran is allegedly the word of God and here God is not really sure what the Quraish had been plotting. It is clear that this is Muhammad guessing. But no one was after him. Don’t believe everything Muhammad said. He was a narcissist and narcissists are paranoid.

My “theory” explains Islam perfectly and it fits the portrait of Muhammad like hand in glove. It solves the puzzle. I invite you to read my book and you too will end up seeing the light.

"The women who 'flaunt' it, flaunt their womanhood (the personality), NOT their vagina."

huh? talk about moving the goal posts… right… and for those actually uncovered… it is the "womanhood" – yet those making the point that – lets not concentrate here – and that is what you term as "vagina". Fallacious, wrong, inconsistent and mixed up.

– – –

"Islam on the other hand, considers all of woman as a vagina. "

Really? How? Let us see if you can explain something.

– – –

" Just as men are born in this world to experience this world through their masculine personality, the women are born to experience this world through their feminine personality, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. "

I have never come across anyone calling their prick as personality before – new one me!

" Let us say someone claims to be a prophet in your town and divides mankind. Will anyone offer him money? The Quriash did not want to kill the bastard, which was their biggest mistake. They thought they can reason with him. But that was also a mistake. They should have killed the son of the bitch and rid the world of his plague."

Such purposeful gutter language… is that all?

Conveniently forgetting all the attempts they made.

– – –

"Quriash want to give all the wealth to a man they believed to be an impostor and a mad man?"

All the money? Where did you get that? Quraysh were prepared to give money & power.

Prophet Muhammad was an orphan – but he did have the family connections – and that mattered a lot. He was a member of the ruling family.

– – –

"If I lie and you tell me,…"

"If" being the operative word.

— — —

You have pet theory going and nothing more – whatever fits you take it… somethings you bend to fit…

what doesn't fit – you ignore it… yet you would deny the whole corpus Hadith.

Writing this, I do realise that there is indeed a large body of what one could call didactic, moralistic and proselytising literature, which I quite groundlessly dismissed as not being literature.

Yes … but I did not mean them either. Works simply written for one particular religion – of a religious nature. However works of one particular religion that do manage to transcend – are literature.

I am beginning to learn other Semitic languages like Syriac and Hebrew – and works that you describe above I would find them fascinating. Some literature might not have mass appeal – with distinct and specialised audiences… is it still good literature – even if it belongs to that category.

– – –

Narnia is Children's classic!

– – –

"I didn't know Ibn Khaldun was equally inspired by his religion. Have you got a cite? "

Himself – Lubabul Muhassal – also he was more than competent Religious Scholar. Sufi's tend to put this on auto-ignore due to his polemic against Ibn Arabi.

– – –

"As far as Newton is concerned, it is possible that, had he lived in a society less influenced by biblical concepts, he would have done even more "

Or he wouldn't have done much at all. It doesn't just work one way. For example all Muslim scholars learn classical logic. However most tend not pay attention to this these days – but some do develop an interest and have begun to explore logic as a science and moved on to computation.

Muslims were pretty thorough in examining the corpus of Hadith and developed many Historical methods and systems. It is not surprising then that led to a fundamental contribution to the scientific method.

– – –

"As children, we are very much like our primitive forebears"

We are always primitive… they will look back at us and call us that. This is unavoidable. It is hard to think of ones self as primitive – but in comparison to what is to come – we are primitive.

But not in all respects.

– – –

" They are there, and they are so evident that questioning them is almost impossible."

Yet a huge amount manage it. Also you need to extend this… there is internal and external rebellion. Else religions like Islam and Christianity would NOT have survived.

Internal history of Islam (as I know it best) is all about change and development. Even know – I refer you to the Pakistani (!) philosopher Muhammad Iqbal. That is a very interesting period of time – where there were many towering figures of Islam – like Syed Ahmad Khan.

– – –

"I grew up as the son of a convert to catholicism, and struggled for twenty years with the doubts brought on by the contradictions in the faith that I had absorbed."

And

"I can well imagine that people prefer to keep their faith, and continue to be scientists. "

You will have a hard time convincing people you are er… greater than Newton.

You have to see things in perspective. Why would the Quriash want to give all the wealth to a man they believed to be an impostor and a mad man?
Otba went to Muhammad and told him if it is money he wants, they will give him money, if he is after power, they will find him a respectable job. He also told him they will find the best physician to chase away the demon that bothered him, and said please stop dividing the people and causing sedition. Now was that offer serious? Of course it would be naïf to believe so. This was a way to pleading with him to end causing sedition. Muhammad also knew the offer is not serious. Had he accepted the offer it would have been the end of him. Everyone would have mocked him forever saying he started lying about being a prophet and then received money and gave up. Some speeches are rhetoric. Use your rational mind.
Let us say someone claims to be a prophet in your town and divides mankind. Will anyone offer him money? The Quriash did not want to kill the bastard, which was their biggest mistake. They thought they can reason with him. But that was also a mistake. They should have killed the son of the bitch and rid the world of his plague.

If I lie and you tell me, Ali I will give you anything you want, just stop lying, does this mean that you will actually give me anything I want if I stop lying? Also if I am an impostor liar, like Muhammad, claiming to be a prophet and have already a few fools who believe in me, is is rational to expect that I will admit I was lying? This conversation was rhetorical. Neither the Quraish nor Muhammad took it literally, but poor Muslims do.

"It's not inadvertent, it is the job of a child's brain to assimilate the society it is born into, so that it can function in that society. We don't have a specific societal pattern built-in (a baby born to a San hunter/gatherer couple can become a stock-broker growing up in America, and conversely a child from Manhattan can become a hunter/gatherer when growing up with the San), so we have to acquire it. We are always children of our parents, our culture, and our time. "

Why thank you…. however when it NOT intentional and child learns himself – then it is inadvertent. The very definition of it. A little strange to deny that yet go on to say the exact opposite….

– – –

"Why? What is so important about my convictions that I should impose them on my children? My convictions will die with me, but my kids will still be here. I don't want them to struggle to integrate in their community because of my decisions. "

Not your convictions… the going against you convictions to appease other people. Unless it is part of your "convictions" to do/be so.

– – –

"If we are going to survive as a species, we have to stand together. "

In many cases I think we are beginning to pull together… more or less. Despite our monumental differences…

When he announced his prophethood, the
tribe of "Quraish" sent his grandfather and
his uncle to him with a deal: they were
willing to offer him all the wealth he desired,
and whatever position he wanted if he just
give up his message……..but he refused,
and this is his famous quote: "If they put the
sun in my right hand and the moon in my
left hand, to quit this job (assignment), I
wouldn't quit. I would procede with my
message or persih without it."

Why rejecting a wealth and a position that
were guaranteed, and clinging to his message that was like gambling, if he
and Khadija were ambitious and after
money and authority?
Just wondering.

No the TLE affects all one’s life. But this does not mean that the person hallucinates all the time. The episode of seizure are sporadic. They generally happen in childhood and early adulthood and often subside in old age. Muhammad had the cave experience which he thought he had become demon possessed. All the symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy are present in that narration, which I explained in detail in my book. But he did not think he had become a prophet. It was Khadijah who put this idea in his head. She was an ambitious woman and not very happy by the fact that no one gave much importance to her husband. By encouraging him to become a prophet, she could elevate her own status. This was very much also the wet dream of Muhammad, who craved for respect and status. They took his hallucination in the cave as the sign and he started announcing his prophethood. But the seizures don’t happen when you want them to happen and when they didn’t he was very depressed and Khadijah was very disappointed. She told him “I fear that God is displeased with you.” It was then that he contemplated suicide. But narcissist don’t commit suicide. They are manipulative, deceitful and resourceful. So instead of committing suicide he decided to make up the revelations and carry on with his prophetic pretense. This not only saved him face in front of his followers, but also gave him the power and control that he so desperately craved for. With fools like Khadijah and Abu Bakr supporting him and believing in him, the door to deceive others was open to him.

No the truth is not one or the other. Some of his visions were hallucination. But when the hallucinations stopped, he decided to make up “revelations.” I see no contradiction in that. 98% of the Quran is made up by Muhammad, only a small fraction of it are hallucinations.

"I don't think you have either the intelligence or the temperament to hold a civil conversation"
————

I have read enough of your comments to see what you do in the name of having "civil conversation". You LIE! You deny your own holy books.
I don't come to this site to hold "civil conversation." I come here to point out the evils of following Islam. Pasting news reports works towards that goal very well.

You are at it again…. what has pasting stories at me got to do with anything?
————

They are not stories, intelligent Amin. They are news reports that show how your fellow ummah is suffering under Islam. Your calling them "stories" shows the readers how much sympathy you have for fellow Muslims.

@Amin Riaz (continuing at the bottom, too much nesting leaves no space)

[quote] "There is almost no literature that is directly linked with religion, apart from biographies of saints and mystic poems. Of course, many novels deal with issues caused by religion. "

This previous comment of your wasn't accurate. There are plenty of examples of Literature inspired by religion. [/quote]

'Inspired by" is not the same as "directly linked to". It is obvious that when religion plays an important rôle in a person's life, it will permeate everything this person does. The question we were trying to address (at least that's how I saw it) was whether or not without religion, we would not have had (certain forms of) literature. In my opinion, absence of religion would not have deprived us of a lot of writing, except maybe for people writing hagiographies and mystical works.

[quote] Works about people struggling with themselves or others are inspired by people, not by religion."

I think this is little dishonest… religion itself is man made. I am sure we agree on that! – even from different perspectives. [/quote]

As a muslim, you do not believe religion to be man made.

[/quote] "I took care to say "directly linked to religion", and I would be happy to get a specific example of what you had in mind (see, two can play these games). "

Rumi – Masnavi [/quote]

It's a didactic religious work, but is it literature? I perused Nicholson's translation, and I wouldn't go as far as reading it for pleasure.

Writing this, I do realise that there is indeed a large body of what one could call didactic, moralistic and proselytising literature, which I quite groundlessly dismissed as not being literature. I am happy to concede that quite a lot of literature would not have existed if humans would not be religious:

Rûmi's Masnavi
Ibn Arabi's poems (I must find some time to read up on Sufism; so much to do, so little time)
Dante's Divina Commedia
Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress
Many of Vondel's plays
Milton's Paradise Lost
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras are more philosophy than literature, but then good philosophy is also good literature (the art of the written word).

But I must draw the line at CS Lewis. Narnia is not literature 🙂

[quote] "Organised religion hasn't done much if anything for science (but a lot for theology, which isn't science), and I do not know of many scientists who contributed to science because their religion inspired them to do so." [/quote]

Not many is not none. Ibn al-Haytham (a most amazingly versatile scientist) did indeed believe that searching for truth and knowledge was the best way to know god. I didn't know Ibn Khaldun was equally inspired by his religion. Have you got a cite?

I believe that people like Newton and Ibn al-Hayhtam would have been equally good scientists without religion. As far as Newton is concerned, it is possible that, had he lived in a society less influenced by biblical concepts, he would have done even more (I mean, who wants to waste brain power on the Apocalypse?).

[quote] That is why the religious have no problem being great scientists. [/quote]

What does a religious scientist do when his scientific findings contradict his religious beliefs?

[quote] "One would have to find specific attributes of religion, attributes distinguishing a religious person from a non-religious person, leading religious people to be more apt or inclined to contribute to science than non-religious ones."

Yet …. many religious scientist THEMSELVES state religion as being the motivation [inspiration] for their studies and knowledge. Why ignore that? [/quote]

Accepting that religion grew out of the need of early humans to explain the world they lived in, science is merely the collection of explanations that turned out to be true. Long ago, religion explained why the seasons come and go, why the plants grow, etc. We no longer need sun gods and other water nymphs, and unless one really believes that god pushes each atom around (which doesn't say anything more than noticing they do move), god's role is now reduced to being the prime mover (primus movens).

So one could argue that what inspires scientists is the search for understanding, If they have been educated in a faith, they accepted its teachings when they did not have the ability to critically examine what makes sense and what not. As children, we are very much like our primitive forebears, and it is not easy to eradicate these early patterns. They are there, and they are so evident that questioning them is almost impossible. I grew up as the son of a convert to catholicism, and struggled for twenty years with the doubts brought on by the contradictions in the faith that I had absorbed. I can well imagine that people prefer to keep their faith, and continue to be scientists.

But what do they do when science clashes with the teachings of their faith?

[quote] Children do inadvertently take on many worldviews from their parents. Children of Democrats will mostly be Democrats… and etc.
[/quote]

It's not inadvertent, it is the job of a child's brain to assimilate the society it is born into, so that it can function in that society. We don't have a specific societal pattern built-in (a baby born to a San hunter/gatherer couple can become a stock-broker growing up in America, and conversely a child from Manhattan can become a hunter/gatherer when growing up with the San), so we have to acquire it. We are always children of our parents, our culture, and our time.

[quote]However – most religious do not share that view – they strongly believe in their religion and want to pass it down to their children as they consider it the right thing to do. [/quote]

I must admit I am not understanding what you want to say, so bear with me.

Atheists can be militant, and become almost indistinguishable from religious people. You don't want children to grow up with prejudices against people who do not think like them. Anything that divides people in "us and them" enables people to see others as not human, and destroy them. Unfortunately, the "us and them" approach is such a part of human nature that we have to work hard not to think like that.

I am always disturbed when I hear the song "We are the champions" because of the "no time for losers" bit. When one has just become the champion, the first one should think of is the loser.

In the same vein, I did protest against the tradition of splitting the children in four groups and having them cheer for their team (and against the others, by extension) that existed in the school some of my kids went to in the 1980ies.

[quote] I find this er… "strange" and rather weak of you. [/quote]

Why? What is so important about my convictions that I should impose them on my children? My convictions will die with me, but my kids will still be here. I don't want them to struggle to integrate in their community because of my decisions.

You could argue (and I would agree with you) that I deprive them of guidance, and the certainty of tradition, and the loyalty to the family, kin and country. And I would agree with you if you would say that helping them to be independent, critical thinkers with a profound respect for others, born of the realisation that we are all humans with the same needs and feelings, hopes and fears, working to maximise well-being for all here on Earth, is just as much a belief as telling them that they are part of the chosen and better than those not of their belief, with all that entails. Even if a religion doesn't look down on non-believers, it still divides humanity in two camps, the first prerequisite for conflict.

If we are going to survive as a species, we have to stand together. And if there is a god to judge us when we die, and it sees that we tried to respect others, make the lives of everybody as happy and fulfilled as possible, acquire as much knowledge as possible, would it cast us in the eternal fire just for not believing?

And if god is indeed the god of Abraham, could you be happy in heaven knowing that millions are suffering for all eternity? Is heaven really an eternity of Schadenfreude?

"There is almost no literature that is directly linked with religion, apart from biographies of saints and mystic poems. Of course, many novels deal with issues caused by religion. "

This previous comment of your wasn't accurate. There are plenty of examples of Literature inspired by religion.

– – –

"I wasn't thinking about Western literature alone. I do not consider writing about religion literature, it's either philosophy or history or nonsense. Works about people struggling with themselves or others are inspired by people, not by religion."

I think this is little dishonest… religion itself is man made. I am sure we agree on that! – even from different perspectives.

– – –

"I took care to say "directly linked to religion", and I would be happy to get a specific example of what you had in mind (see, two can play these games). "

Rumi – Masnavi

Ibn Arabi and Diwan al As

CS Lewis – Narnia

Patanjali

– – –

"And no, it is religious people who furthered science. "

Yet often it is the same thing.

– –

"Organised religion hasn't done much if anything for science (but a lot for theology, which isn't science), and I do not know of many scientists who contributed to science because their religion inspired them to do so."

Ibn Khaldun, Alhazen

– – –

"Newton, for example, did his scientific work outside of religion. His religiously inspired work is now all but forgotten (for good reasons)."

What good reason? His science was better than his religiosity. He was also considered something of heretic for being non-trinitarian.

To ignore his faith – is doing great disservice to the man.

To you it might have been forgotten – but his small contributions still live on.

– – –

"When stating that religion had a hand in progressing science, we mean that specific characteristics of religion cause it to further science. Because religion gives faith-based answers, it is conceptually diametrically opposed to science. "

To you maybe – to many no. That is why the religious have no problem being great scientists.

– – –

"Saying that because religious people contribute to science, religion contributes to science is a cop-out."

how? You are simple making an expected reply… religion often is sum of the people believing it.

– – –

"One would have to find specific attributes of religion, attributes distinguishing a religious person from a non-religious person, leading religious people to be more apt or inclined to contribute to science than non-religious ones."

Yet …. many religious scientist THEMSELVES state religion as being the motivation [inspiration] for their studies and knowledge.

I'm sure you know of quite a lot specific examples of art in all its forms that has nothing to do with religion. And what is not specific about "symphony"? Do you need a composer and a number?

I wasn't thinking about Western literature alone. I do not consider writing about religion literature, it's either philosophy or history or nonsense. Works about people struggling with themselves or others are inspired by people, not by religion. I took care to say "directly linked to religion", and I would be happy to get a specific example of what you had in mind (see, two can play these games).

And no, it is religious people who furthered science. Organised religion hasn't done much if anything for science (but a lot for theology, which isn't science), and I do not know of many scientists who contributed to science because their religion inspired them to do so. Newton, for example, did his scientific work outside of religion. His religiously inspired work is now all but forgotten (for good reasons).

When stating that religion had a hand in progressing science, we mean that specific characteristics of religion cause it to further science. Because religion gives faith-based answers, it is conceptually diametrically opposed to science.

Saying that because religious people contribute to science, religion contributes to science is a cop-out. One would have to find specific attributes of religion, attributes distinguishing a religious person from a non-religious person, leading religious people to be more apt or inclined to contribute to science than non-religious ones. Unfortunately, it's the opposite one tends to find…

"Every Muslim knows that beating women
is mentioned in the Quran, except you
because you denied it."

I deny the contrext and the shades Sina put on it. Quoting something out of its context is a logical fallacy…. Why don't you paste the full verse.

Any other examples – whilst you are at it?

– – –

" Do you want me
to send you a Quran and highlighten this
Aya ? "

This is very easy to do… Quran is freely available online… you could have simply pasted the verse and reference…. I wonder why you didn't?

– – –

"I don't need to know you in person to say so,
your writings proved that you are wrong, cause
I have a Quran, and I know what is written in it,
you don't. "

That is an OBVIOUSLY wrong thing to say….

is that the limits of your knowledge?

– – –

I have more or less 7000 books on the subject – I can understand Quran in its written language and have studied its grammar, sentence structures (syntactical analysis) – morphology – phonology – rhetoric – commentaries – criticisms [by Western Experts] and etc…. for example the principles and rules of how legal rulings are derived.

I was not talking to you.
There's a basic difference between a scientist believing in God,and a scientific invention inspired by a religious theme.I'm not interested in your baloney.Please talk to someone who is interested.

" I did explain this – people call themselves christian or catholic, but that's because it's the closest match. They do not think about religion, and they do not know religion. Religion is not central to their life. They do not see that following just that part of the creed that suits them means that they are not really christians, and in any case, they don't know the creed. They don't read the bible (if they have one), religious education is often optional (in most European countries schools are run by the state and have no religious affiliation), and if it is given it is quite superficial (like drawing nice pictures). "

You merely repeat this again… sorry not interested. Put some numbers next to it.

I brought the "central authority" in the first place to show that religion necessarily isn't just what a central authority dictates… but the overall practice of it by those calling themselves members of that religion.

Hence if there are people calling themselves Catholics and not following the Pope than is Catholicism just limited to what the Pope says – or what the whole body is practicing?

– – –

"Thank you for an enjoyable exchange of ideas. "

You're welcome. And a breath of fresh air! We have not descended into insults [ yet 🙂 ]

"There is almost no literature that is directly linked with religion, apart from biographies of saints and mystic poems. Of course, many novels deal with issues caused by religion. "

Is simply not true… I hope by using the word "literature" you do not confine it to Western literature only.

– – –

"Please distinguish between religious individuals doing science, and organised religion (that is, individuals whose livelihood depends on the religiosity of others) interfering in science. Being religious doesn't mean one cannot do good science. But if organised religion meddles in science, the results are not good (cf. young earth creationism). "

However the point still remains – "religion" has had a hand in progressing science… and what is "religion" other than the humans that practice it.

"What is the matter with you? I said raising children
is difficult because if you give them the choice, they
might end up in a trap….and if you dictate your faith
on them, you are depriving them from freedom. "

Nonsensical.

– – –

"I read your replies to others,
most of them are embarrassing because they
are wrong…… "

Right… yet this is an OBVIOUS and expected claim by someone who does not share my views….

…. If your claim is even marginally true – rather than a petty personal insult – you would have given examples. Which you did not do. Hence, the reason you are asking to quit is OPPOSITE to what you said.

– – –

"your opponents have much more knowledge about
your religion and your book than you do. "

Such as…. name them?

Again this was meant to be [mildly] insulting. If it wasn't you would have given examples for the above.

Also you do not know me…. from Adam. Hence – any evidence for making such claims?

"This is true. I am not one of those deluded people who think Islam can be fixed. This evil doctrine emanates from a madman and has to be eradicated. I am against fixing Islam and I believe all those who want that are either deceived or are deceivers. "

“Wow! The ego… so if it is one man versus 1.5+ billion… do you know how ridiculous you sound?”

No it is truth versus falsehood. Numbers don’t count.

“Sina isn’t here to fix problems… he is here to eradicate Islam by any means necessary.”

This is true. I am not one of those deluded people who think Islam can be fixed. This evil doctrine emanates from a madman and has to be eradicated. I am against fixing Islam and I believe all those who want that are either deceived or are deceivers.

What is the matter with you? I said raising children
is difficult because if you give them the choice, they
might end up in a trap….and if you dictate your faith
on them, you are depriving them from freedom.

So both techniques are hard, and I did not suggest
or recomend to use one of them and drop the other.

One more thing: if you truly truly love Islam and
Mohammad, then do them a favor by quitting
to place your comments and replies on this site,
you are not helping Islam at all, you are just making
things look worse. I read your replies to others,
most of them are embarrassing because they
are wrong……
your opponents have much more knowledge about
your religion and your book than you do.

Is simply not true.
————–
I am fully aware that astronomers knew of Earth being spherical even before Galileo. Majority of the ordinary people (including ordinary Muslims) however were unaware of it. The church tried to silence Galileo with threats. The church represented ordinary people. My point behind talking about Galileo was that one person (or a small group) can very certainly be correct, and a bigger group can very certainly be Wrong. So your claim about Dr. Sina being ‘full of ego’ while trying to face 1.5+ billion Muslims doesn’t mean much.
************
"Dr. Sina is working to eradicate Islam BECAUSE like me, he sees Muslims not only NOT trying to fix their own problems, but instead actively spreading the cause of those problems in non-muslims societies. Otherwise, he too would rather do something else. "

You do state the obvious quite a lot.
——————–
Ok Amin, before we go any further, besides “challenging Sina's hate-mongering”, why do you visit FFI?

[quote] Do you really think there are atheists that give their children possibility to choose? [/quote]

Yes. One of my children is religious. It's a personal matter, and a choice he made for himself. My other children are in the "I don't think about religion" camp, and had their children baptised (so they have a godfather and godmother who give them presents like all other kids).

And yes, they grew up in a secular household, meaning they had access to all religions, if they so desired. The really funny thing is that in my house you'll find a couple of bibles, three translations and an original Quran, works by Aquinas, Averroes (sorry, Ibn Rushd), Hegel, Kant, cardinal Newman, Al Gazali, etc. so if they're interested, they have access to the material (this is less of an issue in the days of the internet, but hey, I was fifteen when my parents got their first b&w TV set).

Of course I would like my kids to have the same worldview, and I cannot be what I am not. I cannot give my children the same view of islam as a pious muslim would. But I made pretty sure that I did not stop them from making their own choices, and they know that whatever their choice, I will respect it and love them as before.

I think this beats a strict, religious upbringing. And we do celebrate on Christmas and Easter (they're pagan anyway) and I had my kids baptised to please my parents and in-laws, and to ensure they would have godfathers and godmothers who give them presents. After all, the bogeyman in the sky doesn't exist, so what's the harm. What matters is connection, love, and living together in peace, harmony and fun.

There is almost no literature that is directly linked with religion, apart from biographies of saints and mystic poems. Of course, many novels deal with issues caused by religion.

As far as painting is concerned, it's quite clear that once the center of power (and money) shifted away from the church/religion, most paintings dealt with humans (portaits) and nature.

Please distinguish between religious individuals doing science, and organised religion (that is, individuals whose livelihood depends on the religiosity of others) interfering in science. Being religious doesn't mean one cannot do good science. But if organised religion meddles in science, the results are not good (cf. young earth creationism).

I did explain this – people call themselves christian or catholic, but that's because it's the closest match. They do not think about religion, and they do not know religion. Religion is not central to their life. They do not see that following just that part of the creed that suits them means that they are not really christians, and in any case, they don't know the creed. They don't read the bible (if they have one), religious education is often optional (in most European countries schools are run by the state and have no religious affiliation), and if it is given it is quite superficial (like drawing nice pictures).

I don't have the stats handy, but if you are really interested I can look up the references (it'll take a while).

Something I read this morning: a study of the University of Antwerp in Belgium reveals that only half of the couples in Belgium are married – this includes civil marriage and religious marriage. In Belgium one cannot contract a religious marriage without first having contracted a civil marriage, that is, a minister of a recognised religion will refuse to marry a couple that doesn't have a civil marriage certificate. Ministers of recognised religions (this includes islam) are paid by the Belgian state. This illustrates the point I was making, that people consider themselves part of a religion but do not feel bound by its creed.

You bring back this central authority issue. While it is true that the catholics have their pope, and the anglicans have the archbishop of Canterbury, most of the reformed churches have nothing more central than a synod (grom the Greek "σύνοδος" meaning council or meeting, where ministers discuss and decide on curch and faith matters. Some denominations recognise only the authority of the bible, but almost all have ministers of some kind. Baptists, for example, have very telegenic ministers ("megachurches") who often call themselves "bishop" (it's more prestigious) and each have their own interpretation of the gospel.

If you don't believe in the authority of the pope, you are strictly speaking not a catholic. That being said, no-one enforces this. Churches are public buildings, and you can enter them freely even if you're not a member of the faith. In some countries (like Germany), you join a congregation, so you're known to the local minister (and you will pay church taxes based on your income -either directly collected by the state or else the church obtains your taxable income from the state and collects the tax itself. If you're a member of a congregation, you pay no church tax). In other countries (like France and Belgium, who recognise religions and pay their ministers), no-one knows if you're religious or not.

I understand that this is not easy to understand for people for whom religion is the center of their lives.

"Observation does count! There is a reason why people spend time on anti-jihad websites, and the reason is that we OBSERVE Muslim supremacism and Muslims' apathy to tackle problems in their own societies. "

Right… see when you first used the word "observation" it was in a completely different context to the one you have used now. I don't think you can separate and understand why it usually wrong to take specific examples and generalise.

– – –

"Show your AUDACITY to people who throw acid on their women, who honour kill them"

But what has THAT got to do with being here? Or challenging Sina's hate-mongering?

– – –

"The real reason why you show your audacity here at FFI is because you know it is ‘safe’ to do so, while showing audacity in Islamic hellholes is not! "

Simply meaningless – as you have no idea who I am or what I do.

– – –

"FFI members are not the ones indulging in these practices; Muslims are! "

Some Muslims…. again this has nothing to whatsoever to do with being here. You simply show you hate and intolerance – by beginning to be personal.

– – –

"Why? Of course, why? What does Amin care? Silly me! His co-religionists are only being true muslims. So why would Amin even think of the need to talk to fellow Muslims? "

Petty and childish response…. This site is about Sina's view of Islam. One discusses matter related to that. Why all the personal attack and aggression?

Nowhere does it say – that Muslims are not allowed to comment – as this is not a site about them. So are you claiming to be a moderator?

– – –

"Dr. Sina is working to eradicate Islam BECAUSE like me, he sees Muslims not only NOT trying to fix their own problems, but instead actively spreading the cause of those problems in non-muslims societies. Otherwise, he too would rather do something else. "

You do state the obvious quite a lot.

– – –

"When one is standing on a solid foundation like Dr. Sina is, then he can certainly face 1.5 billion zombies who are standing on a house of cards."

Right… by dehumanizing and spreading hate indiscriminately against Muslims.

"There is nothing ridiculous about it. When Galileo said Earth was spherical, he was contradicting every one in the world."

See – you display your ignorance. Galileo as brilliant as he was – was NOT the first to point out the spherical earth…. Astronomy was centuries old. Weren't astronomers able to observe that other planet bodies were spherical… hence?

Try reading up on this… concept of spherical earth existed before Galileo.

Good to know that atheism is rising in Arab countries.I firmly believe that only muslims can peacefully end political Islam.If anyone else tries to do it,it won't be without bloodshed.I hope the youths who are rejecting their faith,can show their elders the dangers of religion.

I didn't say literature,art or architecture wouldn't flourish without religion.There are many great works in all these disciplines which are no way inspired by any religious theme.I am saying the only contribution of religion is in these aspects.Whenever it has meddled into Science and Politics,it has led to backwardness instead of progress.

“And how do you know? Where is your research to back this up? You make such general claims all over the site.”
—————–

Observation does count! There is a reason why people spend time on anti-jihad websites, and the reason is that we OBSERVE Muslim supremacism and Muslims' apathy to tackle problems in their own societies. And we see it affecting everyone negatively. Otherwise we certainly have other things that we would rather do, instead of doing something that puts us in the line of media’s fire.

“Yes! I do have the AUDACITY”
—————————–

Show your AUDACITY to people who throw acid on their women, who honour kill them, who persecute minorities like it happens in Egypt and Pakistan on a daily basis, who support blasphemy laws and commit other atrocities. FFI members are not the ones indulging in these practices; Muslims are!

The real reason why you show your audacity here at FFI is because you know it is ‘safe’ to do so, while showing audacity in Islamic hellholes is not!

"Please go and give your lecture on prejudice, stereotyping, and generalising to your own co-religionists."

Why? The thing is you couldn't actually answer whether Sina is "prejudice, stereotyping, and blah…blah….blah….
—————

Why? Of course, why? What does Amin care? Silly me! His co-religionists are only being true muslims. So why would Amin even think of the need to talk to fellow Muslims?

Sina isn't here to fix problems… he is here to eradicate Islam by any means necessary. One would have thought you would have grasped the basics…
————–

Dr. Sina is working to eradicate Islam BECAUSE like me, he sees Muslims not only NOT trying to fix their own problems, but instead actively spreading the cause of those problems in non-muslims societies. Otherwise, he too would rather do something else.

Wow! The ego… so if it is one man versus 1.5+ billion… do you know how ridiculous you sound?
——————-

When one is standing on a solid foundation like Dr. Sina is, then he can certainly face 1.5 billion zombies who are standing on a house of cards. There is nothing ridiculous about it. When Galileo said Earth was spherical, he was contradicting every one in the world. Yet he was CORRECT, and entire rest of the world was WRONG. So was Galileo ridiculous saying what he said?

It is true that fundamentalism is rising among the youth
specially in the Arab world, but on the other hand, Atheism
is also scaling among them, and it is causing lots of worry
among the religious because they never had this problem
before…..thanks to the internet.

I agree that morality in the religious books is not
a big deal………atheists also have morals. Educating
children is the hardest responsibility. No matter how your
beliefs are logical, but I consider the attempt of planting
them in a child is very selfish, because you are depriving
him from every opportunity to choose. But, if you leave
the children to decide for themselves, the odds are very
strong that they will fall in a trap.

Yes, religion had some contribution to arts and literature
because religion depends on emotions. But does this
mean that literature didn't have a chance to thrive if religion
didn't exist? No, of course….with or without religion art
literature ans architecture would always flourish….they do
have variety of sources of inspiration other than religion.

"Yet only 10% of those ticking the box "catholic" don't use contraceptives. "

Where is this form?

– – –

The Anglican quote is quite specific… it hardly gives the picture of world wide Christianity.

– – –

"I do agree that unless you're prepared to apply the whole creed, you should not claim to belong to a religion."

However… Islam, for example, has a very basic set criteria of who is and isn't a Muslim. Extent of "Practice" doesn't really come into it. It is about a basic set of beliefs. In view of that … you statement doesn't really stand up.

Also who gets to decide what is or isn't applying the whole faith?

– – –

"Unfortunately, religions impose strictures that people perceive to be ridiculous, like it bein OK to use a sophistcated device to determine if a woman is fertile and avoid intercourse, but not OK to put a bit of latex between sperm and egg. In both cases, that specific egg doesn't get fertilised, and neither method is "natural". "

OK…. but is that the "religion" deciding or simply one interpretation of it. here is where Islam and Christianity differ greatly – the central authority issue.

To what extent are Catholics obligated to believe in the authority of the pope? I don't know. I will look into it. However, If such a large number do not practice the above yet will still claim to be Catholics… it doesn't necessarily mean they are not Catholics….

" I support Ali's assertion because what he says about Muslims is exactly what I have observed about them. "

No you haven't – and you are being dishonest here. Your personal observation doesn't really count… if you had said "researched" or "studied" – that would have made more sense.

– –

"Muslims stereotype others all the time."

2 wrongs don't make a right. Also that wasn't the subject underhand. Why divert from it?

– – –

"No one from the Muslim community is willing to challenge their co-religionists for their deeds, making it necessary for good people like Dr. Sina to start this website. "

And how do you know? Where is your research to back this up? You make such general claims all over the site.

When they are challenged – you fail to respond. Or you start off on something else.

– – –

"And you have the audacity to come here and charge him with stuff"

Yes! I do have the AUDACITY.

– – –

"when what he actually is doing is making Muslims see the error in their ways."

Wow! The ego… so if it is one man versus 1.5+ billion… do you know how ridiculous you sound?

– – –

"Please go and give your lecture on prejudice, stereotyping, and generalising to your own co-religionists."

Why? The thing is you couldn't actually answer whether Sina is "prejudice, stereotyping, and generalising" or not. Other than making claims. Even to your own ears that is weak… I take it you cannot stand a bit of criticism and that is your way of dealing with it… to protect you idol.

I have said this to you often and I will repeat it – that maybe once you will stop and take notice.

THINK! before you post.

– – –

"When Dr. Sina sees enough Amins trying hard to fix the problems in their ummah, I'm sure he will re-think whether this website is still needed."

Sina isn't here to fix problems… he is here to eradicate Islam by any means necessary. One would have thought you would have grasped the basics…

How did you know that he contemplated suicide and the
hallucinations stopped? This is the first time I hear of
such a thing, in fact, I never came across one of your
articles that mentioned the story of stopping hallucinations
and contemplating suicide. But you said that he used to
have fits and then started to hallucinate.

Yes indeed, why follow another fallible human being?
I never said do so.

There is something good even in the most malignant
person, and there is something wicked even in a saint.
Part f the human is good, and the other part is evil. We
Evaluate a person as good when the good part in him/her
is in control, and vice versa, we evaluate a person as evil
when the evil part is in control.

It is not prejudice or stereotyping. People are diverse, but when they contract a disease they have some common symptoms. Muslims who follow Islam have common traits. They all look like Muhammad. Muhammad was a narcissist. So are his followers to the extent that they follow him.

You don't have to declare that you don't have a girlfriend 🙂 Any girl who is brave enough to discard centuries old repressive local customs won't accept a man with primitive belief systems as their life partner.The repulsion is mutual,it's nothing to brag about.

Like every liar, Muhammad at times lied and at other times said the truth. His claim that he saw an angel in mount Noor was true, but then the hallucinations stopped. His wife was disappointed and he even contemplated suicide. Then it occurred to him that he can make up the revelations and that is what he did.

Also not all humans are the same. Some are good people and some very evil. If the stories about Buddha and Jesus are true, then they were good people. If the stories about Muhammad are true, he was a very evil man.

Nice to read some of your comments here.
You almost hit the nail on the head when you said Christians have learnt to not take Bible literally,while Islam hasn't had this renaissance.Also the rising fundamentalism among young muslims,means that there's minuscule chance of a Renaissance in the near future.But then again revolution starts when conditions have reached their nadir,so this may actually be a ray of hope.

Religious books do have their share of 'moral' teachings along with heaps of mindless garbage and hate-mongering.But there are two important questions here.
Do any of them provide any morals which isn't obvious?It's obvious we should not murder,rape,steal.We don't go and check what's written in a particular book to know these are wrong.Of course "Show the other cheek when someone slaps you" is something we wouldn't know naturally,but then its practicality can be questioned.
Also no religious book says that you can follow parts of it.No,it's all sacrosanct,you can't pick and choose.After all,Organizations that decide syllabuses for schoolchildren meticulously censor out even the slightest content that can misguide them.So shouldn't we better screen these potentially combustible and immutable content from children when the benefits from reading them aren't much holier than what can be arrived at via common sense?

I don't deny the contribution of religion to arts,architecture and literature.Some of the finest piece of arts(The Last Supper,Sufi Songs),architecture(Sistine Chapel) and Literature are inspired by religion.But when Religion meddles with Science and Politics,it poisons everything.Religions should be reduced to nothing but personal choices.Children should be protected from these evils.Religion should be kept at arms length from laws and administration.

It is not for a human [prophet] that Allah should give him the Scripture and authority and prophethood and then he would say to the people, "Be servants to me rather than Allah ," but [instead, he would say], "Be pious scholars of the Lord because of what you have taught of the Scripture and because of what you have studied."

I support Ali's assertion because what he says about Muslims is exactly what I have observed about them.

"What Sina says is nothing more than prejudice, stereotyping and generalising. That by its very nature is wrong."
——————————

Muslims stereotype others all the time. They stereotype Jews, infidel women (especially white women), the non-muslim societies, and even other sects within Islam. No one from the Muslim community is willing to challenge their co-religionists for their deeds, making it necessary for good people like Dr. Sina to start this website.

And you have the audacity to come here and charge him with stuff, when what he actually is doing is making Muslims see the error in their ways. Please go and give your lecture on prejudice, stereotyping, and generalising to your own co-religionists. When Dr. Sina sees enough Amins trying hard to fix the problems in their ummah, I'm sure he will re-think whether this website is still needed.

They tick the box because there is no ready alternative. They vaguely see themselves as more christian than atheist, but they don't know the religion, and do not feel obligated to follow it when its precepts don't suit them.

Let me give you some examples. The pope has clearly stated that chemical or mechanical contraception is bad, and that catholics should not use it. Yet only 10% of those ticking the box "catholic" don't use contraceptives. The same with church attendance; churches are empty but for a few elderly folk, even though attending Sunday mass is part of the duties of a catholic. People cherry-pick and keep only those parts of religion that suit them. We call them "supermarket christians". All denominations are affected by the drop in callings (be called to become priest or ministers), but the catholics are most hit due to the celibacy requirement (which in days of yonder was conveniently solved by sleeping with the housekeeper, but priests can no longer afford housekeepers).

The only figures I have handy are for the anglican church. Here's a quote from their web site:

<quote>Total attendance

Average Sunday attendance dropped two per cent to 923,700 (2009: 944,400). Average weekly attendance at 1,116,100 (2009: 1,130,600) was down by somewhat less, indicating a continuing shift in patterns of church attendance. Average monthly attendance was 1,645,500 (2009: 1,650,600). The average number of children and young people at services each week was down two per cent at 218,600 (2009: 223,000); while the number of children and young people attending on a monthly basis was fractionally up at 437,700 (2009: 436,200).</quote>

I do agree that unless you're prepared to apply the whole creed, you should not claim to belong to a religion. Unfortunately, religions impose strictures that people perceive to be ridiculous, like it bein OK to use a sophistcated device to determine if a woman is fertile and avoid intercourse, but not OK to put a bit of latex between sperm and egg. In both cases, that specific egg doesn't get fertilised, and neither method is "natural".

Don't forget that we've had universal compulsory schooling for sixty years, and while it's not perfect, it ensures that the vast majority of people are better equiped to evaluate the teachings of religion, and the platitudes of politicians.

If perchance you're serious, let me reiterate that the influence of churches in Europe is limited. Those girls who heed the teachings of the churches already do not consider muslims to be suitable partners, unless they convert to christianity. Those who are only nominally christian believe that muslims are like them, and see their religious practices as quaint folkloric traditions.

Muslims seem to have this unshakable belief that everyone sees religion as central to their lives. Obviously, there are christians who feel this way, and they are those who see islam as a false and dangerous religion and don't want it to be placed at the same level as christianity in their countries. Such christians are far more prevalent in the USA.

In Europe and other Western countries, religion is no longer central to the life of the vast majority. Only the convenient or fun bits remain: Christmas (with that pagan tree, presents, a family get-together, and lots of food), Easter (with those pagan eggs, a family get-together, and lots of food and drink), the holidays, the weddings (with fancy dresses. ridiculous suits, a family get-together, and lots of food and drink), and the baptisms (with a family get-together, and lots of food and drink).

The vast majority of European catholics do not follow the pope's teaching on homosexuality, divorce, birth control and euthanasia, do not believe in hell, limbo and satan. Churches are empty, there are on a few callings. Even the minority that does take religion seriously would never expect the secular state to be obedient to the curch — any attempt of the pope or any religious leader to interfere would be scoffed at.

But we know very well that there are no messengers of God,
and all those, so called prophets, were ordinary people
with hallucinations. Each one of them is like any other
human with a bad side an a good side.

The ethics that you see in the Quran is banal, nothing that any other person could not have said. If you read the sermons of James Jones the cult leader you can find also very good teachings. He preached social justice. Even Charles Manson had good teachings. He preached the preservation of Air, Trees, Water and Animals. Nothing wrong in that.

Don’t look at the good teachings. Any con man will say good things to fool the gullible. Never, never look at the good teachings of anyone who claims to be a prophet of God. Always look at their bad teachings and particularly at their bad behavior. A messenger of God cannot say anything evil or do anything evil. If they do, they are charlatans and con men.

You diverted way too far from the path of the truth again. I understand…….
you cannot help it.

There is a lot of good teachings and morality in Islam. I read the
whole Quran in Arabic, and I found some (Ayat) unreasonably
cruel, and they put me off, but I also found some of it extremely
beautiful, specially the Maccian Suras, and I was carried away
by the ethical meanings and by the beautiful rhyme.

This is true partially. However the evil in the Quran is a thousand times more than what you find in other religions. I say other religions are a mixed bag of good and bad. Islam is sheer evil. The good in Islam is a very thin veneer.

So you agree that the other religious books are also full of evil. Then, the
only difference between the Muslims and the Christians is that the Muslims
follow their book literally……the Christians don't.

Religious book were written for primitive people. People of all faiths have managed to take what is good and leave what is bad from their sacred books. They can do this because they don’t believe their books are verbatim words of God. they think they are messages given to inspired men who delivered them in their words. So if there is something wrong it is the fault of the transmitter or the messenger. Muslims don’t have that luxury. they think Muhammad had nothing to do with the Quran and it is all the words of God. So they can’t get rid of all the evil teachings of the Quran.

I did not notice that she said he is violent or physically abusive, all what I understood
from her is that he treats her with contempt. It looks like she is more attached
to him than he to her, and I do not believe that he will give a damn if she leave
him, because he knows that there are plenty like her available to take her place……….
Simpson loves you!

Dear Kay, Ms Ali Sina is right. You've got to practise caution when you decide to leave this braindead zombie for good. Never tell him of your intention to breakup and leave him now and forever unless you're in a safe place to do so. A violent and abusive man will lost all his cool and self control to show you what he can do to you by using force or whatever means, so as to instill fear in you. Be wise and take care. Jesus loves you. 🙂

The Quran says "Beat them if they are disobedient" and did not mention loyalty.
In another word, the Quran orders women to listen and obey what their husbands dictate.

A Muslim went to see a "Shiekh", and he was complaining from his disobedient
wife. The "Shiekh" told him: give her an advice. The man said: she doesn't listen.
Then the Shiekh said: abandon her bed. The man answered: that is exactly what
she wants. Then the Shiekh said: beat her. The man said: she beats me back
with her wooden slipper.

Don't blame the Quran or the Muslim men, but blame the Muslim women for
bowing their heads and accept to be door mats.

I am sorry, but this is a fact. This is mentioned clearly in the Quran: if women don't obey you, give them an advice, and if they don't listen, abandon (their beds), and if they still don't listen, beat them.

However, other "holy" books also belittle women…….and since I don't like lies,
I didn't read that myself, but I watched a video and it says it is mentioned in the
Bible if a woman refuse to cover her head, then she must shave it.

First, if this is what the three participants want to do, why should anyone want to interfere? But given that you call it disloyalty and ill-conduct, I have to assume that the woman and her lover are provoking the woman's husband who doesn't approve of this behaviour. That's neither moral, nor wise.

Second, what's the difference between a man having two wives and sleeping with both?

Third, this isn't the behaviour of the vast majority of couples in the West engage in. There has been a tremendous increase in divorces and remarriages, and this causes problems for all involved, especially the children. But threesomes remain the stuff of teenage wet dreams; most people would like to be in a stable, long-term relationship and avoid divorce.

Not honouring contracts and agreements is not condoned. That includes marriage contracts. You seem to believe that because people who do not follow the rules are not brutally punished, Western societies accept and encourage illegal or immoral behaviour. This is not the case.

I am quite comfortable with Western secular societies. That doesn't mean I believe they're perfect, and there are many challenges we face (like finding a more sustainable way to generate wealth, reducing poverty in the world, or closer to home, improving the opportunities for inner-city youngsters, reducing the number of single parent families, to name but a few).

The women who 'flaunt' it, flaunt their womanhood (the personality), NOT their vagina. Islam on the other hand, considers all of woman as a vagina.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman flaunting her feminine features. Just as men are born in this world to experience this world through their masculine personality, the women are born to experience this world through their feminine personality, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

It is the word in parentheses (lightly) that is not part of the Quran.

"The whole Islamic world is narcissist. They all reflect the mental disorder of their prophet. Narcissists are abusive. They have very low self esteem. They humiliate their nearest and dearest. They put others down so they can feel good about themselves. They also have double standard. They engage in all sorts of vices and want to be perceived as holy people. This was how Muhammad was. They are concerned about their image."
———————–

Dr. Sina is hundred percent correct about this one. I have lived with Muslims and that is how they were, even though they were of the same ethnicity as myself and came from the same culture (Punjabi). Religion was the only difference.

"Don’t tell me a woman who agrees to wear hijab has any dignity left in her. A woman who believes her arms, her legs and all parts of her body are extensions of her vagina and private parts that have to be covered has no dignity and does not deserve any respect. If she wants to project an image of herself as a walking talking vagina, she should be treated as such."

Yet the exact same can be said for those who "flaunt" it. The argument presented here is Sina's and has got nothing to do with Muslim women or their reasoning. It is a badly though out thought process. And it doesn't work.

– – –
"…are extensions of her vagina and private parts that have to be covered has no dignity and does not deserve any respect"

Even if you take this to be true – the morality of it is STILL wrong.
– – –

Again – it is pretty evident that "freedom of choice" is a meaningless concept to him. Not only for those who cover it all up but equally for those who choose to to bare it all. And especially for those in-betweeners.

Domestic abuse is perpetrated by a minority of men and women. In other words, a majority of couples live, if not in bliss, in reasonable harmony. Can you elaborate on why this would not be the case in muslim countries? After all, humans are humans, and most of us are not inherently violent.

In other words, is our referring to abuse in muslim marriages not based on the same distorted picture painted by the media, highlighting the minority of abusive marriages and ignoring the majority of harmonious marriages, that allows muslim apologists to claim that all western women are abused?

There's a saying in statistics – the plural of anecdote is not data. I realise I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but do we have hard data on spousal abuse in muslim countries?

Islam itself is borrowed from pre-islamic concepts and traditions.Take the hadith with the stoning of monkeys,for example.This was supposed to be during the period of ignorance (pre-islam).Yet muslims copied these monkeys and still stone adulterers to this day.

You raise an interesting point. I would like every human to be treated as an individual, without prejudices. If we assume that a man is narcisistic merely because he was born to muslim parents, that's clearly a prejudice. Stereotypes are the result of folk statistics, and while we're not natural statisticians, sometimes stereotypes are based on a kernel of truth. For example, a lot of men are loath to ask for directions (I know I am). Others are baseless, like associating blond hair with lack of intelligence.

Statistical information is never applicable to an individual. Considering a person a narcissist because he's male and a muslim is stupid. Asking whether there's a higher incidence of narcissism in Muslim men as opposed to non-muslim men is a valid question that can be answered through a well-designed experiment.

We have been asking questions about the effect of education on people. Oftentimes, educational choices are made based on ideology, but that doesn't mean that we cannot get good data on the effect of our educational choices. Similarly, we can ask questions on the effect of our cultural assumptions. For example, are people from a culture that is convinced of its superiority over other cultures less likely to perceive people from other cultures as equals?

To be a bit more confrontational, does a culture that assumes that a male cannot control himself in the presence of a female have a higher incidence of males who effectively cannot control their sexual urges? Long time ago I read a book by Jomo Kenyatta (I think it was "Facing Mount Kenya") where he describes how in his Kikuyu culture a young man and a young woman with a romantic interest in each other would spend the night together without engaging in intercourse (though there was limited sexual activity), and how the missionaries would rail against this practice because "no man could spend a night alone with a woman without engaging in intercourse". The European missionaries were, of course, projecting their own cultural norms and sexual hangups on the Kikuyu.

It would seem we perceive the norms of the society we grow up in as universal. Cultural norms and assumptions do not need to be clearly spelled out and formally taught for the child to discover them and accept them as universal. The young brain has no built-in social norms but is programmed to discover the norms of the society it is born into, like it discovers language. Understanding that there are other cultures, and other languages doesn't come naturally unless the child is exposed to other cultures and languages. (As an aside, this explains the popularity of home schooling in certain groups – it postpones contact with other values until after the window has closed. It also explains why children learn many languages with ease as long as they start at an early age).

If this is indeed how the human brain works, then there's hope for pluralistic secular societies, as long as second generation immigrants are exposed to the many cultures and the overall climate of acceptance of difference in a pluralistic secular society, This means that we should make sure that people do not live in segregated areas, that schools are accessible to all and accepting of cultural differences (and that separate, culture or religion-specific schools are not encouraged), and that opportunities and jobs are available to all without discrimination. The children will then see this type of society as normal and universal. There are encouraging signs that this is happening in countries like Germany, where many young people reject the attempts of their parents to perpetuate their cultural practices (like marrying someone from the native village of the parents).

Sure, not all those who abuse, humiliate and belittle their wife or girlfriend are Muslim. Some non-Muslims do it too. All narcissists do it. This is their nature. The problem is that all Muslims who follow Muhammad properly are narcissists. Misogyny and abuse of women is part of their religion. It is in the Quran. Beat them if they disobey. You can’t get clearer than that. No you can’t whitewash the misogyny of Islam with domestic abuse.

Excellent article. Islamic culture is culture based on honor vs shame. Muslims claim that this is a pre-islamic concept, but it is not. Muhammad was a simple minded illiterate barbarian who only knew of the tribal rules of his primitive society.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's existence is public, ruled by the law s of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man (and woman) free from men.

Some years back, I remember watching a famous movie titled " The Burning Bed"
for Farah Fawset. Her husband was talented in creating variety of methods to
torture her physically and mentally. That film was a true story of an American/
Christian couple.

The newspapers, TV, internet and all other media sources provide us daily with
stories of abusive husbands and boyfriends from all religions and races.

A smart woman with dignity will never put herself in a position like that. Is it
that difficult for you to leave him? How can you expect others or any man to
respect you while you have no respect for yourself?

Perhaps, and I mean "perhaps", I might give you an excuse if you are living
in one of the backward countries……..but you live in Canada, which I assume
is like the USA…….the woman is in the lead here.

You cannot leave him? I think I know your problem. Learn how to have control
over yourself and desires, because if you don't, others will control you.

"Can you tell me what you think? why they are such a hypocrites and even if he claims he is modern and goes out, parties, drinks, when is Ramadan he changes and with me he tries to always be right and when arguing he never listens to my arguments. He simply tells me I am stupid and not intelligent and not decent. I am really not that and everyone knows. But for him, in his eyes, I am not even good to explain my argument –he refuse to hear what I feel and think."

Isn't the conclusion obvious? To separate from such a person – no matter who he is?

– – –

Another chance for Ali Sina to to trot out his well versed hate. Scenario changes – his message is always the same.

– – –

In his eyes – it doesn't matter what – if you are Muslim – you are automatically guilty. This is exactly what Bin Laden and such like.

This is "hate" of exactly the same nature. Fanatics of the same kind – that is why he has no qualms in joining up with any anti-Muslim hatemongers of all religions and background.

A similar nature of "hate mongering" is required. Just below the line of "get rid of them all by any means necessary".

– – –

A choice quote:

"The whole Islamic world is narcissist. They all reflect the mental disorder of their prophet. Narcissists are abusive. They have very low self esteem. They humiliate their nearest and dearest. They put others down so they can feel good about themselves. They also have double standard. They engage in all sorts of vices and want to be perceived as holy people. This was how Muhammad was. They are concerned about their image."